[Spambayes] Is this a sign of future problems ?
David L Kindred (Dave)
d.kindred at telesciences.com
Tue Dec 16 16:22:48 EST 2003
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net> writes:
Tim> [Chuck Lewis]
>> The only reason I can think of is that the spammers are trying to
>> poison the Baysian statistics that are being gathered, so more of
>> the legitimate spam will be let through.
Tim> ... The modern variation is inserting random dictionary words
Tim> instead of completely random strings ... Neither variation is
Tim> much use against Bayesian filters (e.g., is bedimmed a strong
Tim> ham word for you? heh). ...
What if the goal is not to try and trick the Bayesian filter into
treating spam as ham, but the inverse? Could this be an attempt at a
kind of "denial-of-service" attack by trying to get the filter to start
treating everything as spam? Would that idea work?
David L. Kindred
Unix Systems & Network Administrator
More information about the Spambayes